Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
11 results
for “Rectification”
American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.
A proprietor may validly register a mark proposed to be used through a registered user, and such a registration is not liable to removal for non-use merely because the proprietor itself has not used the mark.
Foreign ProprietorNon-useProposed UseRectificationTrade MarksBikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad & Anr.
A registration obtained in bad faith for a mark identical to a prior user's long-used mark for the same category of goods, with no evidence of a bona fide intention to use, is liable to be removed from the Register under Sections …
Bad FaithPrior UserPurity of the RegisterRectificationCopyrightDr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
An injunction against use of a registered artistic work follows the artistic work onto any label, not merely the one impugned in the plaint. In Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings justification is no defence: so long as an order stand…
Contempt of InjunctionCounterfeitingExemplary CostsOrder XXXIX Rule 2ATrade MarksHardie Trading Ltd. & Anr. v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd.
In a non-use rectification under Section 46 of the 1958 Act, the applicant bears the burden of proving the statutory non-use conditions, while the proprietor must prove special circumstances excusing non-use; while a registration …
Honest Concurrent UseNon-usePerson AggrievedRectificationTrade MarksHoly Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) & Ors.
A registration will not be removed from the Register unless a ground for rectification under the Act is established.
CancellationFloor CleanerGONYLERectificationTrade MarksKaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
An action for infringement of a registered trade mark is a statutory remedy in which the use of a deceptively similar mark is itself actionable regardless of get-up, packaging or intent to deceive, whereas an action for passing of…
Acquired DistinctivenessDeceptive SimilarityDescriptive MarksInfringementCopyrightOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Copyright)
A defendant cannot defend a copyright infringement suit on the basis of a registration that has been cancelled by an unchallenged rectification order which found the artistic work to be a copy of the plaintiff's pre-existing get-u…
Artistic WorkColourable ImitationCopyright RectificationLabel DesignTrade MarksOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)
Where a coordinate bench, following an unchallenged rectification order, has found the mark in question deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the infri…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical MarksPrior UseTrade MarksParle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Where two parties file competing applications for registration of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis, priority for registration under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is determined…
Approbation and ReprobationPrior RegistrationPriorityProposed to be UsedTrade MarksRefex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
A company name identical to or closely resembling an existing company's name and mark may be ordered to be changed, and the Regional Director's refusal to do so can be set aside in writ jurisdiction by the IP Division.
Company NameRectification of NameRegional DirectorTrade Name